- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15604 WP No. 27218 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 27218 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MUNINAGAPPA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.3/10, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR BANASAWADI RAILWAY STATION, LINGARAJAPURA, SAINT THOMAS POST, BENGALURU-560084 (BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED.) 2. SMT. RUKMINI D/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NEAR MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE, SRINIVASAPURA (SUDUGUNTEPALYA) C V RAMAN NAGAR POST, K R PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU-560005 Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15604 WP No. 27218 of 2024 3. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT GUNDURU, VIRGONAGAR POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560049 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560009 3. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU-560064 4. SRI SHAME GOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS SMT M S SHARADAMMA D/O B M SHAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15604 WP No. 27218 of 2024 5. SMT M S VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O B M SHAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, 6. SMT. ANURADHA D/O B M SHAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 ARE R/OF MANDUR VILLAGE AND POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560049 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO T3; SRI. DHANANJAY V. JOSHI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR C/R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01-04-2024 PASSED BY THE R1 IN RP NO. 33/2019-20, (ANNEXURE-A). SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31-10-2018 PASSED BY THE R2 IN RA (BNA)478/2017-18, (ANNEXURE-B), BY ALLOWING THIS WP AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R3 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY.NO. 59/1, MEASURING 22 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT MARASANDRA VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, NOW YELAHANKA TALUK, BASED ON THE TITLE DEEDS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15604 WP No. 27218 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER This writ petition arises out of the proceeding under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. It is not in dispute that a sale deed was executed on 28.09.1961 in favour of Shame Gowda to an extent of 2 acres. The sale deed indicated that Shame Gowda was purchasing Sy.No.47. However, about 32 years thereafter mutation was affected on the basis of this sale deed in respect of Sy.No.59/1 measuring an extent of 2 acres. 2. Pursuant to this mutation, the family members of Shame Gowda partitioned the property and as a result, another mutation in M.R.No.1/2002-03 was came into being. However, in this mutation, as against the extent of 2 acres purchased, an extent of 22 guntas was partitioned. The petitioners who are the family members of the original vendor challenged both the mutation made on the basis of the 1961 sale deed and the subsequent mutation made on the basis of the partition by - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15604 WP No. 27218 of 2024 filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 3. The Assistant Commissioner however rejected the said appeal on the ground that the challenge to the mutation was belated. This order has also been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the question of delay would not arise since the petitioners were not notified of the proposed mutation and in any view of the matter since the mutation was not relatable to this sale deed, the same was as nonest. 5. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent No.4 on the other hand contends that the mutation has stood the test of time and a challenge made in year 2017 was wholly untenable and the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner was therefore justified in passing the impugned orders. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15604 WP No. 27218 of 2024 6. It is however the admitted case of both the parties that a suit in O.S.No.305 of 2018 has been instituted by the petitioners seeking for a declaration that they own the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.59/1 and the said suit is pending consideration. 7. In the light of this particular fact, in my view, interest of justice would be served by directing revenue entries to continue as per M.R.No.8/1993-94 and not as per M.R.No.1/2002-03. The Authorities are directed to ensure that the entries that stood prior to M.R No.1/2002-03 i.e., on the basis of M.R. No.8/1993-94 shall continue till the disposal of O.S.No.305 of 2018. Ultimately, the revenue entries will abide by the degree that may be passed in O.S.No.305 of 2018. The impugned orders are therefore accordingly quashed and the writ petition is disposed of in these terms. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4